I am after advice on how best to target this as until you get to the Supreme Court, the states and territoties manage the justice system. Does SCA go federal or do we petition on a state by state basis? here in Queensland we will be seeking -and stand a good chance of gaining - a commitment from the Labor opposition to run with this in the very long run up to the next election. Your thoughts please.

Posted to SCA's FB page today:"Here is the very reason why we will be petitioning for an overhaul of our justice system. If throwing a pie wrapper on the floor of a train carriage costs society $1100, why can a cyclist be killed through criminal negligence by dooring a cyclist, and the offender only stands a slim chance of being fined the maximum penalty of $1408 in Victoria? Remember, James Cross lost his life and the driver who knocked him under a truck by opening her door without checking recieved a $141 fine and had no conviction recorded.Bearing this in mind, at $120 per day in prison, littering on a train or platform could land you in the slammer for 12 days if you can't afford to pay the fine.If you you are caught blocking train doors in Melbourne you can be slugged with up to $5500 or 46 days in prison, yet kill a cyclist from behind and you can get away with a 12 month suspended licence and a $3100 fine for the death of SA cyclist Ian Humphrey before subsequently fleeing the scene and evading the police for 8 hours so as to seek legal advice.A Pie wrapper versus a life, and the lives of those who are left behind.Other penalties on VicRail trains (other States are similar) include:*Putting feet on train seats $100-$550*Drinking alcohol on CityRail trains/stations $400-$1100*Offensive language, offensive behaviour or spitting $400-$1100*Damage or vandalise railway property $400-$2200The inequity must be addressed."

It's got to be state-by-state. Constitutionally, the Federal Government can't make criminal laws unless they have to do with telecommunications or customs or something like that (they need a "head of power" and they don't have one, not for motoring offences anyway). There's a pretty significant difference between state criminal laws too. For one thing, Queensland and Western Australia (not sure about Tasmania?) have criminal codes and the rest of Australia doesn't. Even if there was a centralised push (difficult for constitutional reasons) the changes would still have to be on a state-by-state basis.

Slight digression: it isn't just a legislative problem. Not only do you need laws with teeth, you need an executive that's prepared to use them.

Re the Labor opposition's commitment: bah humbug. They put a "new offence" on their platform before the last election. Actually, it was a new circumstance of aggravation to, as far as I can recall, dangerous driving. Whee. BQ just smiled and nodded along I guess the fact that they now fob cyclists off with nonsense rather than ignore them counts as progress.

I am completely behind you on this one Womble, so please take my comments as intended to help improve the message.

The 2nd Womble wrote:If throwing a pie wrapper on the floor of a train carriage costs society $1100

I'm not sure what the basis of costing society $1100 is. A fine to an individual is different to the cost to society of the action. Reading this confused me and I'm sure it will confuse others. It may be to rephrase.

The legal changes necessary are complex and significant and I don't believe it can happen without significant support of law review panels. We are a long way away from this as even the current laws are not being upheld by the police. Personally I think the focus of advocacy groups regarding giving the law some teeth should start by ensuring the police uphold existing laws then focus on pushing for stronger ones.

(I was initially against the push for a 1m passing law for a variety of reasons detailed previously but I think I've come around. While in my opinion it isn't an ideal law, it is very workable within the current system and at least gives a clearly basis for charging motorists with offences in the current environment.)

If you want to start pushing for significant legal reform womble then you need to consult with the experts significantly before you start push a line here. It is a complex area and it isn't as simple as increasing fines. It involves complete reform of the interactions between the road rules, civil negligence claims and criminal culpability. The reasons why hitting a cyclist is punished so lightly is that the fine failing to give way is the same whether the result is a cop car has to brake quickly and no contact occurs or if a cyclist loses a leg.

The dooring death incident is a funny one. Because of knee-jerk reactions, we now have a situation where dooring a cycling is punished more severely than running over one that is directly in front of you.

human909 wrote:[color=#008040][b]If you want to start pushing for significant legal reform womble then you need to consult with the experts significantly before you start push a line here. It is a complex area and it isn't as simple as increasing fines. It involves complete reform of the interactions between the road rules, civil negligence claims and criminal culpability. The reasons why hitting a cyclist is punished so lightly is that the fine failing to give way is the same whether the result is a cop car has to brake quickly and no contact occurs or if a cyclist loses a leg.

Civil negligence has no bearing on criminal punishments for driving offences, because drivers are fully indemnified as part of their registration (CTP). There are realistically no consequences for a driver beyond criminal.

zero wrote:Civil negligence has no bearing on criminal punishments for driving offences, because drivers are fully indemnified as part of their registration (CTP). There are realistically no consequences for a driver beyond criminal.

Exactly and that sort of was my point. Drivers generally have sufficient deterrent from car on car accidents as they are inconvenienced and face significant out of pocket expenses. Drivers normally face significantly lower consequences for car on bike accidents yet the results to the innocent cyclist can be severe.

The 2nd Womble wrote:Yeah, intending to seek legal advice on this before proceeding. It may be worth pursuing this in my home state and hoping for a result, but it promises to be a bit of a rough journey.

It will be a hard uphill battle. I applaud you for you efforts in this area (especially in light of my negative comments in other areas).

Honestly I think this sort of reform is at minimum 5 to 10 years away. The groundwork can be done now but in the meantime simply getting police and politician to take current offences against cyclists seriously needs to come first.

The 2nd Womble wrote:Yeah, intending to seek legal advice on this before proceeding. It may be worth pursuing this in my home state and hoping for a result, but it promises to be a bit of a rough journey.

What do you see as the problem (problems?) with the legislation in Queensland? My big complaint is lack of enforcement.

Enforcement is a major issue which needs to be dealt with yesterday. My concern is that my life is insured for $150,000 should anything unfortunate happen, and yet the moron charged with culpable driving as a result if killing me or anyone else whilst talking on a mobile phone or eating a bowl of cereal on the way to work, can stand a good chance of walking from the courtroom with a fine that wouldn't pay for my TV. And our judges and magistrates deem this as appropriate sentencing. Laws and their consequences are proving inadequate with relation to the crimes being committed, particularly given the severity of some penalties, what they've been applied to and the fact that the same judge who fines a door I g cyclist killing driver $141 can in the following sitting lock a man behind bars for 5 years minimum for any one of a host of lesser crimes and neither he or our pollies give a rats.If I am hit from behind and killed, my wife will be told by the court that her wedding ring is worth more than the man who placed it on her finger?

Leiothrix wrote:What does jailing anyone accomplish though? Assuming it wasn't deliberate, what does anyone get by locking them up? The justice system is not supposed to be about revenge.

And with regard to doorings, what happens if your 5-year-old in the back seat opens the door and kills a cyclist? Should the child be jailed? The parent? None of that will bring back the deceased.

Parents of a habitual truant in the UK were gaoled for refusing to do anything about it. All of a sudden parents of truants found religion and their children started attending school. Punitive punishments work.

If a 5 year old opens a car door and kills a cyclist .... 1) why wasn't the child lock enabled 2) what sort of parent would have a 5 year old sitting on the traffic side of the vehicle? 3) Adults are responsible for the children in their care therefore the responsible adult assumes responsibility for the cyclists death and if a custodial sentence is appropriate the responsible adult serves the term (if I were to allow my 5 year old niece to handle my firearms and they killed someone I'm the one that should face the consequences).

As for punishments not bringing back the deceased..... That's hardly a compelling argument against gaoling murderers is it?

Oxford wrote:punishments serve as a warning and hopefully a deterrent. when enough people are jailed, then other people may decide that thinking about their actions is an option they should exercise instead of being blindingly oblivious (and not even responsible) to the consequences of their actions.

+10000000000000000000000000..........Too bloody many excuses, not my fault, it was an ACCIDENT, my childhood was crap.

As for punishments not bringing back the deceased..... That's hardly a compelling argument against gaoling murderers is it?

That's why I had the "assuming it's not deliberate" in my post. The point of gaoling a murder is that they're a threat to society. They deliberately took someone's life, and baring having a very good reason to kill (i.e. self defence) I'd argue they should be strung up, but that's a whole other discussion.

As for the placement of the kids in the car -- having two kids fixes that argument pretty quick. And some kids are naughty buggers, disabling the child lock is only flicking a little plastic switch. And as for age -- say they were a 10 year old instead, makes my example work a bit better .

punishments serve as a warning and hopefully a deterrent

Criminals don't seem to care about the punishment, only the risk of getting caught. Plenty of people getting done under the 3-strikes laws in America for example.

I've had the odd close call with cyclists before. Sometimes because they just do something stupid, sometimes because I just can't see them. If I hit one under the law it would be my fault, but there's nothing that I could have done about it.

When I ride I wear a white jersey and have a bunch of lights on my bike -- even during the day, try and be predictable, watch traffic around me, and generally try and keep myself as safe as possible. Not everyone has that approach that though.

I am a cyclist and driver and really not trolling here, but some people make things too black and white. Given that this is a cycling forum I understand the bias, but figured I'd play devil's advocate anyway.

Leiothrix wrote:What does jailing anyone accomplish though? Assuming it wasn't deliberate, what does anyone get by locking them up? The justice system is not supposed to be about revenge.

And with regard to doorings, what happens if your 5-year-old in the back seat opens the door and kills a cyclist? Should the child be jailed? The parent? None of that will bring back the deceased.

Parents of a habitual truant in the UK were gaoled for refusing to do anything about it. All of a sudden parents of truants found religion and their children started attending school. Punitive punishments work.

If a 5 year old opens a car door and kills a cyclist .... 1) why wasn't the child lock enabled 2) what sort of parent would have a 5 year old sitting on the traffic side of the vehicle? 3) Adults are responsible for the children in their care therefore the responsible adult assumes responsibility for the cyclists death and if a custodial sentence is appropriate the responsible adult serves the term (if I were to allow my 5 year old niece to handle my firearms and they killed someone I'm the one that should face the consequences).

As for punishments not bringing back the deceased..... That's hardly a compelling argument against gaoling murderers is it?

Okay, I'll bite.(1) is a fair question, assuming the car has them.(2) Speaking for myself: the kind of parent with a 5 y.o., a 3 y.o. and a toddler. (3) I assume this is a statement of principle, because the current legal situation is as follows: no way would a 5 yo be legally responsible, nor should they be. I totally reject the notion that parents should be vicariously liable for their child's every misdeed. Some notion of criminal neglience? Fine. That's a rather more nuanced question that "that child done bad; the parent's on the hook for it", though.

As far as the current legislative situation goes, let me quote s328A of the Queensland Criminal Code:

A person who operates, or in any way interferes with the operation of, a vehicle dangerously in any place commits a misdemeanour.

(Emphasis added). It's pretty clear you could apply this to dooring.

Killing someone is a circumstance of aggravation good for 10 years in chokey. That's s328A(4) if anyone would like to actually talk about actual legislation.

The elephant in the room is that the odds of someone being charged with such an offence for dooring are slim. Now, I totally accept that there are things that could be done to make it easier to make such charges stick (like strict liability, in the technical-legal sense), but that's a separate question to whether adequate penalties are available. I contend that there is a tolerably big stick, plus an infuriating reluctance to wield it.

The problem is attitudes. This is not a good thing. Statutes are far, far easier to change than peoples' minds.

If cars don't have child locks then they're unsuitable to use to transport children.

I don't think that's to hard or harsh. or am I being unfair (good chance of that as I'm internet tough)?

Further - why do we not have sunset clauses (or whatever the correct phrase is) whereby existing motor vehicles that do not meet new standards have to shape up or get off public roads? Just because it was acceptable in 1970 doesn't mean it cuts it in 2012. If it is OK then give me back my AR15, Mini-14, SKS, Ruger 10-22, pump action shotguns and my magazines and we will call it square. They were all Kosher when I bought them but then all of a sudden they weren't and Australia had no problems with taking them off me and no, the monetary compensation was not adequate (6 figures would have been close).

How old are your kids? Closing the door for a 5 year old might make sense, but you'd expect a 10 year old to be able to get themselves in the car and buckled up by themselves. Even with the 5yo though it only takes 1/2 a second for them to flick the little switch to disable the child lock. Not even necessarily because they're naughty, but because kids like pressing buttons to see what they do, or just because they can.

And even though you might close the door for them, I highly doubt you check the status of the child lock every time, or in fact ever (or to be generous, often). It's one of those taken for granted kinda things.

If you're arguing for strict liability for the actions of a child -- think of all the times your kid has done something stupid that only by luck have either they or someone else been saved from something bad happening to them. Gaoling someone due to that does not help anyone, and only ruins more lives.

Leiothrix wrote:How old are your kids? .... Gaoling someone due to that does not help anyone, and only ruins more lives.

I'd ask how old are you? If you lack the stomach to send people to prison then you don't really have any business in talking about the justice system in Australia. You must not know anyone permanently incapacitated. There is a real and present danger when it comes to doorings, and accidents happen - but they don't seem to happen as often if someone knows the sword of Damocles is hanging over their head.

Prison tends to be filled with deadbeats for a reason. You have to work hard at getting in there. You just have to accept that punishments must accompany wrongdoing. It is utterly unacceptable for someone to act in such a way that kills another, particularly when that action is punishable in the first place. We KNOW that opening doors is dangerous. That's why the Road Rules say you can't do it. That's why cars have had child locks on doors for decades.

Excuses don't save lives and provide for the future of children... and it seems that insurance is the only saviour when people like yourself lack the guts to punish wrongdoing. Our society IS going to crap because of it (or didn't you notice all the insanity caused by dodgy wars and GFCs and planes flying into buildings over the past decade? That was not the result of a well oiled machine called America running day in day out). Consequences must follow actions. Lacking the heart to punish evil acts doesn't improve the situation.

I don't remember any child locks on me old mans 69 Toyota Crown or the HJ Prem after that

I do recall him banging on regularly about looking back before opening the door (I always had the traffic side). Nothing to do with bikes, trucks were the boogieman then.

Always used the child lock with my two. IIRC, they never flicked the switch, maybe 'cos it was not accessible with the door closed. Didn't stop me channeling me Dad and banging on about looking back and still doesn't even tho' they be 17 and 20yo...

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

Seriously? Plenty of people deserve to be in prison. They are the ones that deliberately set out to hurt others, physically or otherwise.

You seem to be emotional about the issue -- and I'm sorry if something bad has happened to someone you care for, but this whole thing is not about revenge.

And since when is opening a car door dangerous? Everyone does it several times a day, barely thinking about it. If you're lucky the driver will look in the mirror first, but we should all know how fast a person on a road bike moves. Even if they are being perfectly diligent it is still easy to door someone.

Someone living their lives as per normal and having some "poo happen" does not make them evil. ANYONE can cause harm to another without fault or intent, and it does not make them a bad person.

Flip this around to a car drivers argument -- if you're driving along a street with a lot of parked cars around, your visibility for pedestrians is crap. Say you realise that and slow down. A 3 year old runs out from in front of a parked car and straight under the wheels of your car. Nothing you could have done to avoid the accident, and given how cunning kids are you can't even really blame the parents.

A kid is dead, should you go to gaol over it? You acted cautiously and bad things still happened. You're going to feel crap about it, what good would it do to send you to prison? You didn't do anything negligent and a kid is dead. Is that an evil act? What good will prison do? Calling for such severe punishment is just calling for revenge. The point is that accidents are accidents. (And if you're a cyclist, don't ride in the door zone!! Claim the lane instead. And have high-vis clothing, and lights!, don't be a ninja).

(And for the record, I've neither been hit nor hit anyone, but being emotive doesn't help objectivity in any case).

ozzymac wrote:Of course if somebody runs into a cyclist there needs to be stiffer penalties, the excuse I didn't see them is utter rubbish.

Which world do you drive in? Because I cycle myself I pay particular attention to other cyclists, but plenty of them are not visible. Riding at dawn or dusk (i.e. too/from work) with no lights and dark clothes means no-one can see you. So "I didn't see you" is not necessarily an excuse, but something to be reasonably expected.

ED: I'm not trying to say that gross negligence is excusable (re I want to get past you and throw a beer bottle at you as I pass), but sometimes people on bikes are their own worst enemies.

've had police cars buzz past me at 50cm & 80km/h so I'm aware of how hairy it can be, but sometimes bad things just happen, and being black and white about any issue is generally a dumb idea.

human909 wrote:[color=#008040][b]If you want to start pushing for significant legal reform womble then you need to consult with the experts significantly before you start push a line here. It is a complex area and it isn't as simple as increasing fines. It involves complete reform of the interactions between the road rules, civil negligence claims and criminal culpability. The reasons why hitting a cyclist is punished so lightly is that the fine failing to give way is the same whether the result is a cop car has to brake quickly and no contact occurs or if a cyclist loses a leg.

Civil negligence has no bearing on criminal punishments for driving offences, because drivers are fully indemnified as part of their registration (CTP). There are realistically no consequences for a driver beyond criminal.

Drivers are not protected from consequences because of the third party insurance cover. However the innocent victim is protected.

In certain sorts of case the insurers may still go after the insured driver at fault in some cases, such as being drunk, serious reckless driving, etc.

And I recall from my injury in 1981 that the Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (as it was at the time), while covering me, claimed everything they could of the idiot that injured me. In addition the vehicle insurers went after him for two and a half cars. After personal injury and property damage the bloke was out of pocket to the tune of a modest house at the time.

(Interesting side note: In WA it was illegal at the time for an insurance company to pay out for his damaged car under the circumstances, even if they had wanted to.)

The consequences may not be great enough for everyone's liking, but they are there in many forms.

ozzymac wrote:Of course if somebody runs into a cyclist there needs to be stiffer penalties, the excuse I didn't see them is utter rubbish.

Which world do you drive in? Because I cycle myself I pay particular attention to other cyclists, but plenty of them are not visible. Riding at dawn or dusk (i.e. too/from work) with no lights and dark clothes means no-one can see you. So "I didn't see you" is not necessarily an excuse, but something to be reasonably expected....

I can see the point you are arguing. But in fairness to Leoithrix, he was not even hinting at taking out the judgement of the court. If he had then I would be agreeing with you.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.